tv [untitled] December 1, 2011 5:00pm-5:30pm EST
this is called the fruit of both parties that it's over for the united states is not the first time he's gone he said. well you don't states breaking up is hard to do the u.s. and pakistan relationship is on life support so what happens and ties between the two countries collapsed completely. and it's the massacre of the us doesn't want you to know about the thousands of taliban prisoners of war killed and then burry both by dirt and paperwork because according to the bush administration all fair in the war on terror. and speaking of all's fair bring on the
waterboarding and enhanced interrogation tactics that's right some u.s. senators don't see a problem but for turning to our tortured past. it's thursday december first five pm in washington d.c. i'm liz wahl and you're watching artsy. i'll start off today by taking a look at a relationship growing more troubled relations between the united states and pakistan seem to have reached a new low this after nato forces accidentally killed at least twenty four pakistani soldiers pakistan is taking action taking out u.s. aircraft there kicking them out of the country the relationship between the two countries already rocky after the u.s. swooped in and a raid to capture and kill osama bin laden now the pakistani prime minister warns there will be no more quote business as usual with washington president obama had this to say about relations with the country we will constantly
evaluate our relationship with pakistan. based on is overall this helping to protect americans and our interests but there's no doubt that. you know we're not going to feel comfortable with a long term strategic relationship with pakistan if we don't think that they're mindful of our interests as well so our ties between the u.s. and pakistan on the brink of breaking arctic correspondent marina pour in iowa takes a closer look at the strained relationship. relationships are never easy but when it comes to the partnership between america and papa stan the sugar daddy of this geo political alliance has turned out to be islamic bods most dangerous friend in a post nine eleven world pakistan joined forces with the us in the war on terror
receiving roughly eighteen billion dollars in return over the past ten years yet hundreds of pakistani civilians have been killed in view us drone strikes targeting terrorist most recently nato had to admit it killed two dozen pakistani soldiers. this sent protesters onto the streets of islamabad torching and effigy of president barack obama burning american flags and demanding an immediate divorce from its american partner this is hardly the first time the pakistani sovereignty has been infringed by the united states is not the first time that pakistani citizens have been killed by the united states and its allies it seems to be the case now you know we guards pakistan as a kind of free fire zone in which we live. to abuse the country
free with no need for poetry or redress nido has called the incident tragic and an intended promising to investigate killings the pakistani government has demanded the u.s.b. key an airbase used for drone attacks it's also closed a vital u.s. military supply route to afghanistan a third to half of all supplies that go to the nato forces go through pakistan so this is going to have a major impact there's no question about it the biggest rift between the two countries came six months ago when the u.s. violated pakistani sovereignty to assassinate osama bin laden with lost respect because people now fear. united states because we're like a drunken person will go to war anywhere if you threaten us now obviously his prime minister has come out and said there would be no more business as usual with washington there are who feared trying to produce what america historically speaking i did to experiment the war and come to parkland or point of approach is
not going to go it can pretty good with world order and i want and wanting everyone . to stand has been america's main ally in the region for decades but constant abuse of the partnership by the us has driven a wedge between the two many believe that pakistan's case highlights that a u.s. bearing gifts while leaving the stop at nothing to get what it wants are enough for nile r.t. new york and to talk more about the implications of all this earlier i spoke to scott horton contributing editor on legal and national security matters for harper's magazine he told me why u.s. and pakistani relations have had an all time low take a look. i think there's no question about this since august independence the relationship has never been as torn is right now this was last year two thousand
and eleven has been the rockiest year yet and the relationship and the other three specific incidents that punctuate the first of the b. early in the year we had. the raymond davis. acting cia station chief who shot and killed two pakistanis who turned out to be intelligence so exhilarates then of course we had the osama bin ladin or a which i think from the perspective of us were the must have had to be done and fully justified but nevertheless was hugely embarrassing to the subjects of course it really revealed the fact that he was there obviously operating under the protection of senior military figures and the rate went off without getting permission pakistani authorities and now we have this latest incident aboard the twenty four pakistani soldiers so we had two incidents there really are serious
mistakes that the americans may. seriously degraded their relationship now with saying pakistan. is taking action they've ordered the u.s. to get out and take care of your own along with them is this a sign that pakistan is now more willing to stand up to washington. well i think you know we have to realize first of all that the pakistani state is not a monolith in fact we can do is guys down the middle there is an enormous military and intelligence establishment the general staff and the i ask that has for decades been either in fact it's war and the government pushing out of popularly elected civilian governments or it's been a sort of an interstate that really runs the country from within that's the relationship that is the most direct that this point to the process then there is the relationship with the elected civilian. government that not
actually is pretty good not withstanding the remarks you just heard from the prime minister. so if the highest rank continues to go down how what does that mean for the war on terror i know there's fear that the pakistani military might cooperate with the taliban. but i think we have to if you would first of all and a larger political contacts because certainly figures knows i'm about to do so pakistan has carefully cultivated over decades an alternative break our relationship that is with china and that mediately after all this border and there were reports circulating at park this time that the chinese would be given the go ahead to construct i'm able to solidity on pakistani soil so i think you see that
development. bill i think it's unlikely that we see a complete terminations of the relationship with the united states i think it's more likely that you'd see a pakistani crackdown on the expensive operations that the u.s. intelligence community have in practice. the cia the cia clearly hundreds of covert operatives there it's been operating and the enormous drone war two hundred started between the strike. group since two thousand or so it's gone up for several years by the united states is a covert action that were operational but there's really not a good word about it it's reported goddard's fully understood is widely discussed more there than here i think most likely that's going to be the particular target but the part the study military of the soldiers service and that was contributing editor at harper's magazine scott horton. now i want to turn now to what could be
one of the worst atrocities in the war on terror yet many americans don't even know about it this that this month marks the ten year anniversary of a massacre that took place in afghanistan it happened at josh to laili it's located in the desert of northern afghanistan near shah bargain charges that an afghan warlord took custody of thousands of taliban prisoners from u.s. forces and then allowed them to die witnesses say the prisoners were crammed inside a metal containers and transported to show bargain prison for it but many of them did not make it to their destination alive over a three day period some witnesses say up to three thousand suffocated to death or were sprayed by bullets their bodies thrown into a mass grave apa site general abdul rashid dostum the afghan leader that's a charge of this operation happens to be a u.s. ally it's unclear what role the u.s. played by u.s. forces were stationed nearby and some witnesses say the united states knew all
about this now at the time the bush administration refused to look into the incident claiming it was an internal matter for afghan authorities but despite a promise by president obama to investigate ten years later what exactly happened and the role that the u.s. play that all remains a mystery to help sort it all out i spoke to nathaniel raymond a former lead investigator on behalf of physicians united on the dr lee case i asked him just what did his team discover take a listen. our team physicians for human rights under the auspices of united nations visit the site at least twice to conduct for luminary exam a sions in two thousand and two they found multiple. skeletal lies remains that means that the flesh on the bodies had decomposed and they concluded from those remains that the cause of death was consistent with this fixation. and so
having found that your team urged both the u.s. and afghanistan to conduct to further investigate the incident but with our thoughts the response was a stone wall of silence not only from the government of afghanistan but also from the united states and as jim rice and the new york times reported in two thousand and nine there's clear evidence and that's what our investigation found p.h.r. as well that the united states and actively quashed investigations by both the f.b.i. the state department and also apartment the fence into the wailing massacre can you tell us what leads you to believe that there was an effort to cover up the evidence that covered the pulse i got. what leads us to believe that is three data points one is the statement of former special agent. else
cry of the federal bureau of investigation to the new york times that he. interviewed detainees at guantanamo who had allegedly survived a mass suffocation in container trucks in afghanistan the second data point is our analysis of the classified u.s. documents including intelligence reports or freedom of information act case we brought against the bush administration which show that the us not only knew about the incident but they also knew that witnesses in the case had been allegedly murdered and then the third data point is the documents that we reviewed and also the conversations i've had with former bush administration officials which indicate the clear. and strenuous efforts of senior administration officials in the bush white house to prevent department of defense
and justice investigations into the case so as you say there wasn't a panic to hide this evidence. so at this point is there any is there sufficient evidence to prove that this did in fact happen. there is unfortunately. evidence in the absence of evidence and what i mean by that is in working with the american association and the vance of science. in particular lawrence brownlee we petitioned for human rights in two thousand and nine procured satellite imagery of the site which showed years after the incident occurred a presence of backhoes one back in a what appears to be a dump truck and the presence of two large pits appearing at the site in. our view of the matter
a war crime being the evidence of work aren't being destroyed is in itself potentially a war crime. today ten years later there are still many questions not very many answers as to what exactly happened back at the hyatt. or what is your belief of the lack of involvement in this massacre well as our investigation found and as we reported after the new york times story came out to the state department and in the national security council after president obama said two years ago that he was authorizing a national security team investigation into the matter what we we know quite plainly that general uproar she's dostum who control that prison control that prisoner transfer in which those men allegedly died was a cia asset we know that he was working at the time with u.s.
special forces and cia paramilitary forces and as newsweek showed in photographs it obtained u.s. forces were present at the base soon after the events in question in november of two thousand and one so the question now that remains is after ten years of community. and two years of inaction by the obama administration. are we going to finally face the history in this incident and in doing so it's about the present in the future of u.s. policy in afghanistan but also us is here and so the geneva conventions and the uniform code of military justice or guard lists whether u.s. personnel witnessed a massacre u.s. personnel participate in any way the issue that remains is are we committed to being a nation that is living under the rule of law and if we are then we need to investigate
this we're part of this what the outcome may be or how politically convenient the laws. nothing else as many people died as estimated this could be one of the greatest massacre through a car during the war in afghanistan why has there been such a little media coverage about this. well i would say that the dosh the way we massacre with the estimated body count that we have been working with potentially a thousand to twelve hundred people rangsit not only is one of the largest mass approach that may have occurred in afghanistan also one of the largest massacre potentially in the twenty first century or among the largest and the issue of media coverage for me is that there's been actually a sizable of media coverage particularly by roy gutman of newsweek and now mcclatchy newspapers james rise and new york times those reporters have been heroic
where we have not had success is turning that media coverage from numbers of hits into actual policy response the question that needs to be raised now by the media is why has president obama two years after saying anderson cooper that the u.s. national security council would investigate this incident that we heard nothing about it was there an investigation did it get put in a drawer somewhere the old executive office building that's a question that needs to be asked now and additionally the those who survived ended up it appears on time according to the f.b.i. . where are they now do we still have witnesses to a potential gross violation of human rights and even conventions in u.s. custody once on a mo or another facility this is not just about the past it's about who we are as
a nation now and going forward and lastly i just want to ask you quickly add ten years later what helped you have a proper investigation will ever be conducted them for the public. when i started investigating i was twenty four years old and for me the events of that investigation have shaped. every aspect of my life i try to live my life as a memorial to those witnesses those eight to twelve individuals whose names i do not know who died because they saw something horrific and as human beings they told the truth i do not know if there will ever be a full accounting of the dasht e leili incident i do not know whether the full knowledge of the united states government will ever be revealed i do know however that those men who told the truth and who paid the ultimate price for it deserve us to try as hard as we can and if anybody still alive today if i could give a firsthand account of what happened not that i. well according to the u.s.
government there was a oral people. of the special forces the green berets who were there in the area at the time i think the question we need to ask is how is a nation what we compel those who wore the uniform of injury to account for what they did or did not know about the incident the issue is not finding people who were there the issue is compelling them to talk in the context of a full formal investigation to now up till now it's been comments by the president and media by spokespeople stage arm in the white house it has to go beyond. press statements to it actually so. ok great. thank you so much for giving up here and. well thank you for discussing something that is still so relevant ten years later.
still ahead on our team from a torture of past to lend a hand terry nation of you care no matter what you call it a thing of the you laugh a little bloodthirsty of days or at least the senate anyway that starting that. r t is the state run english speaking russian channel it's kind of like. russia today has an extremely confrontational stance when it comes to us. what drives the world the fear mongering used by politicians who makes decisions to break through it's already been made can you trust no one who is in view with the global mission we see where we had it so. state controlled capitalism is core
saturates when nobody dares to ask we do our tea question more. well keeping torture alive a bill in the senate is calling for a return to bush era tort care if my lawmaker introduced the amendment which would undo president obama's executive order banning torture as an interrogation technique that amendment also aims to bring back a quote classified set of torture tactics so this would deem certain forms of torture allowed for the public isn't allowed to know what they are so why is congress so gung ho about torturing tactics former reagan administration official and columnist raghav roberts joins us now welcome paul why are we seeing this a renewed push for harsh interrogation practices of world if you're talking about
to detain a policy that's in the defense authorization bill which allows the u.s. military. to pick up people and every kind of tree in the world which includes china russia and the united states and hold them indefinitely then we're talking about something that's far greater than a torture possibly talking about the peel the united states constitution and what we see from the vote. against it meant. rand paul the republican senator from kentucky to exempt american citizens from this amendment to the defense authorization bill that would allow the military to simply pick up any american citizen anywhere all earth and hold them indefinitely without charges. what we see is that.
rand paul's him again for voted down the u.s. senate so we have the u.s. senate consisting of all except two republicans plus fifteen democrats voting to repeal the united states constitution now another there is some question as to whether these harsh interrogation tactics are also constitutional. for example waterboarding that was once torture and now it's considered now it's considered not torture or they're kind of a back it's like the definition of this is unclear and now there's this classified less to which it would make it so americans don't even know what forms of torture are allowed why is there this parse to so allow the u.s. who to engage in torture but i don't know why we've focused merely on torture since
we're talking about is again a policy the united states government executed jack believes following world war two for water boarding people so that the the position of the united states government is that waterboarding is torture we've actually executed people for doing it so i don't see how they can ever say that it's not torture but what we are up against is more than the lawlessness of the united states government in waiting american statutory laws against torture which are on the books and against violating the geneva conventions but what we're talking about is an amendment to the defense authorization bill which permits united states government. to use the military in violation of the posse
comitatus act which has been in place sent eight to seventy six. and to use the military to arrest american citizens and hold them in definite detention with no recourse to courts of law now this constitutes the repeal of the united states constitution and when you fire it we have sixty eight members of the elected congress who have supported this and what we see as you know in states is all its way to being a police state only two republicans in the senate voted against this amendment only two so what do we know we now have
a republican party that is a cause stop oh carty it is in favor of our united states military aggressed american citizens and putting them in concentration camps and that's what's happening right now before us to try to our on ice and so what does that have to think about the climate in congress and a primary in politics and if it continues on this track where i'm at what america could end up looking like. well obama says he's going to veto this and according to the washington monthly which is a very long standing. washington publication the senate voted this way all but two republicans plus two plus fifteen democrats they all voted. to give this power to the military
despite the fact that the white house the pentagon the f.b.i. the cia the director of national intelligence in the hands of the justice department's national security division all told the senate don't vote for this is a very bad idea there and yet they didn't and so the question really comes to who wrote this amendment he said he stuck it on the defense authorization bill because they assume that most sentences don't want to go to dance national happens but who rode to cement what what is the purpose of it what is the agenda this is the question that's unanswered what is the reason for this amendment and the well you know some arguments proponents of the from and fat with all the name of faithful either of them you asked me to go to beth rau an article of faith from
terror threats look what terrorist threats of the talking about since september eleventh two thousand and one more than a decade ago they have been no terrorist instance in united states except those orchestrated by the f.b.i. here are no terrorists insoles despite the efforts of washington to create terrorism by bombing a half a dozen and muslim countries and wish to completely say. homeland security hasn't called a single terrorists there's no terrorist activity in the united states therefore there's no basis for this type of a response there's some other agenda going and i think what it is is to shut down all the critics of government because the critics of government.